Post navigation

Sex claim victims ‘are not money grabbers’.

I agree absolutely! We have a judicial system that offers no more restitution to the victim of sexual abuse than the spectacle of punishment for the perpetrator, and financial compensation to the victim – ostensibly to pay for therapeutic treatment, and if that amounts to a new pair of Jimmy Chou’s rather than an accredited psychologist – so what? Whatever works for the victim of sexual abuse. Nor do I particularly subscribe to the theory of a cut-off period beyond which a crime is no longer a crime.

This might surprise you, but ’tis true.

Where I vehemently part company with the opinions of Ms Saunders, Head honcho of the Church of the Paternalistic Saints Crown Prosecution Service, is at what point do you become a ‘sex claim victim’. Ms Saunders and the fellow members of her congregation have been engaged in a long battle to redefine ordinary words in the English Dictionary. They do this because they wish to redefine our Criminal Law. In Ms Saunders world, you become a ‘victim’ simply by the act of proclaiming yourself as such. Ms Saunders then promises to do her best to deliver you of ‘the Devil’ a ‘guilty verdict’, but whether she can or not (and Juries are such fickle beasts) she says you can be sure of being warmly embraced by the Church of the Paternalistic Saints CPS and their disciples.

This is the language of the Deliverance Ministries. It speaks of the pain of deliverance; the courage of coming forward for salvation, and offers the reward of being accepted into a congregation of people who might have shunned you before.

It has the same appeal to the lonely and dispossessed who fear that their past years of drug abuse, criminal behaviour, perhaps a licentious sexual life, might bar them from the company of celebrities and ‘important’ figures in society. They may be confused as to why they have taken that path in life – and here is a ready made reason; they may have forgotten about it for years, but good people, important community leaders, have the answer – it was not their fault, not their choice, they were possessed by an evil spirit!

All they have to do is proclaim that they are possessed of the Devil and wish to be delivered of him – and the great and the good of their community will welcome them wholeheartedly into their community, embrace them to their bosom; hail them as heroes for engaging in this fight. Nobody will ever actually ask to see evidence of the Devil…for verily, they are all believers that he ‘could be’ there. What more do they need to know? Is it not cruel to demand of the victim, writhing on the floor, speaking in confused tongues, even as the Pastor taunts the Devil, demands that he leaves – how can we inflict on that victim a demand to prove the Devil exists?

As the Archbishop of Canterbury decides that the Christian Church of which the Crown, the Queen, is head, shall no longer demand of the congregation ‘Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?’ and thus divests his church of the certainty and succour offered by the Deliverance Ministries; so does the head of the Crown’s Prosecution Service offer a new Deliverance…

Amongst those who have wheeled mid-air and now flock like a murmur of starlings to the new church CPS, there will undoubtedly be some who have fallen prey to sexual predators, with all the damage that that is capable of doing to subsequent lives. Some will not have been damaged – but if saying so is what is required of you, so be it. Inescapably, there will be some who have been damaged by other events in their lives – and have never felt inclined to pay their BBC licence but who are now presented with a ready made reason for not doing so – and compensation to boot!

That an organisation comprised entirely of new-apostates who have spent their whole working lives demanding ‘proof’ or producing ‘proof’ in our judicial system should suddenly recant and embrace the mores of a religion that demands blind adherence to the book of unproven parables and sky fairies is nothing short of astonishing. The proof that they have indeed embraced those mores is that those of us who point out the oddity of this situation are routinely denounced with that early Christian taunt of ‘Heretic’.

Next week will see the start of a court case that will challenge this new orthodoxy. Should the belief that ‘children don’t lie’ still be applicable 40 years later, when the victims are far from being children? Is it unreasonable to expect that – when it is 40 years later – there needs to be more concrete corroboration of parables than the sight of a murmur of starlings wheeling in the sky?

We shall see. In the meantime, expect the airwaves to be groaning with the sound of Pastors extolling the virtues of the theory of Deliverance.

Some time back Anna you suggested the criminal and civil law was not a totally satisfactory mechanism to adress issues of child abuse (sexual and otherwise) and advocated resources be allocated to counselling (a word which has become rather discredited but which I use in this context to mean allocation of resources to ‘help ‘ rather than compensate). I disagreed with you at the time on the basis that the present law should have been able to provide appropriate remedy and in theory I still do since the criminal law and the law of tort should have been able to have coped but in practice it doesn’t appear to been able to so do. But you have changed my opinion —victims (whether real or self nominated) desperately need some form of catharsis and the present legal system is probably not the appropriate forum andneither is it the right mechanism for it and I agree that there appears to be a need for a major rethink—-I doubt the efficacy of the present system to genuinely help the ‘victim’ —help is nontheless needed—the criminal law is not wrong to ‘punish’ and seek to ‘rehabilitate’ an offender but I really have come to question if the present binary system which emphasises polarity of opinion (the adversarial system) in ALL cases gets near to addressing the issue. I am though of the opinion that abuse is a major issue that needs to be addressed and needs addressing with honesty —at its root and in a moral/cultural context rather than legal context —at its heart I think is the issue of the exertion of improper power over others and that is a cultural and moral issue in the first instance.

Child Abuse law must surely have been created with the the idea that abuse was happening *now*, and if lots of actual children corroborated one another then that should be taken as evidence. What is actually happening is that very mature adults have piggy-backed that well-meaning piece of legislation with he active encouragment of the police. It is now becoming even more subverted by the tort lawyers. This was obvious to the Home Office back in 2002 when they admitted themselves the courts were imprisoning innocent people every week and a parliamentary Committee was formed to study the problem. But nothing was ever done about it. This situation has persisted quietly for *normal* people. Now, the celebrity cases are demonstrating what a dreadful mess it all is. The authorities need to start accepting the awful reality of what they have been doing for over a decade – before it gets even worse.

“These investigations are often said to involve “children’s homes”. In fact they are usually residential institutions for troubled or difficult adolescents and, since the allegations of abuse usually refer back ten, 20 or even 30 years, those making them are not children at all. They are almost always adults, many of them with long criminal records. In a number of cases they make their allegations in prison or while facing serious criminal charges. It is here that the real dangers of police trawling operations become apparent – or ought to become apparent.” Richard Webster [deceased] 1999http://www.newstatesman.com/node/135233 “If police officers interview hundreds of damaged young people with long records of deception and dishonesty, with the aim of gathering allegations of abuse against those who once cared for them, it would be surprising if they did not succeed in provoking a large number of false allegations – particularly when it is known that such allegations can result in thousands of pounds being paid out by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.”

Since Webster’s day, we now have an Industry of Compo lawyers inciting the criminal classes…. Victims of Society – as Monty Python would have reminded us back in the 1970’s.

One good thing to come out of this sorry episode is how it has highlighted the existence of cases we’d never have heard about. Hopefully, the many who have been wrongly convicted or accused of child sex abuse will seek to have their cases reviewed, and there will be a change in the law so that folk are better protected from the consequences of False accusations in the future !

I see the next phase of this madness as something to appear this coming summer time; for it is inevitable, that when the sheeple become bored with the last sermon, it must be replaced with an ever more strident message, to keep the doubters fearful, and the harridans in focus.

When the words of ‘victims’ become less useful, they will be replaced by the ‘prodigal rapists’; behold the ex-perpetrators, for they have repented their REAL SINS, which just goes to show that criminal heterosexuality is REAL SISTERS!!!

So prepare for a summer of ex-rapist celebrities, with their sordid detailed stories of REAL HETEROSEXUAL CRIME, that will make saint Jade Goody of the wine bottle, seem as a Goddess of culture. Crime pays… £145.50 per annum.

I’ve reprinted this article from the BFMS Newsletter December 2003 (available online) because it seems relevant to the current debate – including the compo question. Things have gotten a lot worse in the courts since then.

Therapy culture in the courtroom by Margaret Jervis Last month a conference was held in London on “therapy culture”i – the title of Frank Furedi’s new bookii. One of the points stressed was that “therapy culture” was not primarily about therapy, which could be good, bad or indifferent, but about a linguistically-foisted view of humanity that was ultimately controlling and self-defeating.

Therapy culture in this sense is now ubiquitous. And that is why it is so insidious. For it has wormed its way into the fabric of our institutions to form a consensus of powerful but often misconceived dogmatic opinions. The conference tackled far-reaching aspects of the therapeutic milieu, including those in the workplace and international war zones, but it did not address a central issue: therapy culture in the courts and criminal justice system.

In criminal trials involving alleged sexual abuse, the judge will usually tell the jury to put aside “emotions” and “feelings” when dealing with the case. However, what passes by is the number of therapeutically-driven presumptions that routinely shore up cranky evidence with the full support of the Court.

The prosecution and sometimes the judge will tell the jury that “we now know” it is, in fact, quite normal for hideous sexual crimes to be committed by a parent or carer and then not disclosed until decades later. In fact, we know no such thing. The basis of this “common knowledge” is claims that have been made selectively by groups with vested interests in flagging up the prevalence of sexual abuse in the home, together with dubious claims by alleged victims who have modelled their assertions on the therapeutic rubric. The key test here is that the mounting “discovery” of a large number of alleged victims, whose experiences echoed a prescribed pattern, only came after a decade of unwarranted assertions by the new wave of sexual abuse theorists in the 1980s. This expectation was satisfied by promoting the “therapeutic” use of techniques of memory creation and inflation while focussing on unknown or unacknowledged sexual abuse as a likely cause of current problems.

Yet the claimsmakers’ figures do not even stand up to their own scrutiny. Take the NSPCC which led the crusade in the early 1980s, stating that between one in four and one in ten girls were sexually abused, predominantly by fathers, with cases that were coming to light the “tip of the iceberg”. The NSPCC’s own research has revealed a quotient of only one per cent of respondents claiming to be sexually abused at all by the broad category of a parent or carer – and note these are claims, not verified cases. The largest category of abuser was not other relatives but “other known people” followed by “strangers/or someone recently met” this latter group frequently being contemporaries.iii

Figures like these suggest that the sexual abuse victim stereotype – years of horrific abuse at the hand of a parent or carer that is hidden from the world – is not a routine occurrence but a therapeutic construct that has permeated through the media into popular consciousness and the courts.

At no point has the NSPCC or any other promotional organisation admitted that much of their evidence for their original scare campaigns depended on the circularity of assumptions and flawed clinical practices that were manufacturing victims. Rather a whole generation of social workers, police and mental health professionals followed suit. By the early 1990s there was a groundswell of support resting on two pillars. Firstly, the linking of abuse claims to compensation and secondly, the soft landing provided by the media and the broader social fabric to therapy culture and victimhood.

It is now standard fare in the courts for evidence of abuse to be proffered implicitly through claims about effects, such as low self-esteem, drug and alcohol excesses or an eating disorder. Rarely is there any questioning of likely causation – it is taken as read that sexual abuse does cause a myriad of delayed psychological problems. But again there is no reliable evidence to support this, only clinical speculation and unthinking belief.

Then there is witness demeanour. While the jury may think they are putting aside their own “feelings”, it’s a fair bet that in the absence of any external proof, the jury will rest heavily on what they regard as the authenticity of the complainant’s emotions. Getting upset when giving evidence, particularly the graphic descriptions, might well move jury members, in fact it’s pretty well programmed to disgust them. As the judge directs, they may be assiduous in putting aside their feelings, but will they similarly be able to dismiss the display of emotion and lurid detail by the complainant as an arbiter of truth? Of course real victims can get upset retelling a crime and true details can appal. However, it would be rash to rely on these factors alone – because contrary to popular opinion, emotion is not a reliable guide to truth and visual details, such as the colour and pattern of a dress allegedly worn during an assault 20 years ago, do not provide any guide to authenticity of recall or truth.

These and other prejudicial factors go some way to explaining why it is that so many of the people who come to the BFMS for advice after conviction complain that the conviction took place despite there being “no evidence” and massive inconsistencies and contradictions. “Would an abuse victim have left her children with an abuser?” is a common complaint. “How could she have led a normal life with all that going on?” is another. Or, “If she was being raped day in day out without contraception, how come she didn’t get pregnant?”

The answer is simple. The jury do not believe abuse victims behave as would ordinary rational beings in the face of other serious crimes, or bear detectable signs of extreme abuse contemporaneously. Instead they accept the bottling up and delayed signs and effects theory as being the norm and apply it. There need be no mention of “repression”, “blocking out”, and “recovered memory” or even of therapy. Yet unwittingly the jury may be swayed to convict by inferences drawn from specious therapeutic dicta rather than actual knowledge.

Not every case, judge or jury is therapeutically hoodwinked, but too many are as a matter of course. And there are numerous other misconceptions drifting through the courts such as the theory of “denial”. This dictates that when people of good character deny sexual offences this denial is in itself supportive of guilt. Again, this notion has a foundation in therapeutic fiction, not fact. Yet a bare denial may be all an innocent person can offer in his defence.

As anybody wrongly convicted knows, it is extremely difficult to challenge a jury’s verdict on appeal unless there is new evidence or a binding legal point. However, when, as is arguably the case at present, the trial process itself has been systematically contaminated by therapeutic misapprehensions about the nature and reliability of evidence in sexual abuse cases, the wrongfully convicted may have very little recourse to justice in the higher courts.

What is really worrying is that the need for safeguards is not acknowledged because of a failure to recognise the existence of the problem. Belatedly some members of the senior judiciary seem to be sensing that something is wrong. Lord Justice Woolf’s comments in an Appeal Court caseiv hint at the possibility of a large class of convictions being unfairly decided. Given its caseload, the Criminal Cases Review Commission must harbour similar fears.v In the current climate, it would be altogether astonishing if the courts, much less the politicians, were to act on their fears. But with the critique of “therapy culture”, a significant section of people and the media are now beginning to question the shibboleths that have come to dominate popular discourse. It’s time we did likewise in the courts.

There’s an interesting aspect to the modern police policy of trawling ex-residents of care homes for historic sex abuse accusations, which has not hitherto been much discussed.

Given the now obvious danger of any children’s home worker being falsely accused and wrongfully convicted, decades after the alleged event, what kind of person would still choose to work in children’s homes?

Bearing in mind that there is no criminal conviction, including murder, that does so much permanent damage to a person’s reputation, physical safety, career prospects and prosperity, and ability to have a normal family life of their own. (Leslie Grantham had no problem becoming a high-profile star of the BBC despite his murder conviction- it would be impossible to imagine a “reformed paedophile” achieving this, indeed the very concept of “reformed paedophile” does not even exist in the public imagination).

I can think of three types of people who might still choose a career in children’s homes at the present day.

1) Those who are pathologically naiive, sailing through life fortified by the belief that “it couldn’t happen to me” and that “people I’ve been kind to would never hurt me.” These people are a liability in any type of care work- a danger to themselves and others.

2) Those who cannot get a better job. Children’s home staff are, I beleive, about as badly paid as those of old peoples’ homes, which gives a rough-and-ready guide as to how much those client groups are really valued.

3) Those who are happy to prioritise their own protection against false accusations above all other goals and considerations, even if it means never ever comforting an inmate with a hug, or being alone with them, or disclosing anything about oneself, or anything else that might afford an opportunity for false accusations 20 or 30 or 40 years down the line. In other words, anything resembling the normal parenting which these kids have been deprived of. The only way for children’s home workers to keep safe will be for them to treat their charges as if they were highly dangerous adult psychopaths. Never be alone with them, never tell them anything about yourself, never touch them except when physically restraining them or sticking a needle in them.

That is pretty much how Broadmoor nurses have to operate. Which is why I have never believed the allegations about Jimmy Saville’s conduct in that place.

It’s foster carers in the front line now. See this http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1075980/foster-carers-reforms-tackle-false-allegations Point is though – these are just the contemporaneous false allegations – what may the future hold? Children’s homes these days are very small, cost a bomb and are often private. They are only used for kids who can’t /won’t be housed in foster care but there are also short term respite centres. They are constantly monitored with hotlines for kids reporting any abuse. These are the homes where the kids, exercising their ‘rights’ would breeze out to hang out with the local takeaways, sex, drink, drugs etc – yes the ‘street groomers’ – now of course local authorities are under fire for failing to keep them in! (the recalcitrant kids treat the foster carers with the same impunity re their ‘rights’ – cross me and I’ll accuse you)

Not ever being alone with them is no protection. I suggest any such worker should now demand CCTV film everything 24/7 365 days of the year. perhaps the film could be sealed unless needed legally. How else can someone defend themselves against a false accusation? Personally, I think anyone who works with children today is taking such risks they must be almost balmy to do so.

She’s confusing two separate issues, people that make a complaint over something that has *genuinely* happened to them and have been awarded money on the basis of their *genuine* experience or suffering should not be viewed as money grabbers, but those who make up false claims of having been sexually abused, assaulted etc in the hope of getting their hands the sort of money that might be awarded to proven victims of sexual abuse, assult etc – ARE money grabbers (to say the very least)….

The process is two-stage. If someone is found guilty in a criminal court then Government compensation is available as per Criminal Compensation, but it’s often not availed of as I understand. What actually happens is that then the various accusers – some of whom were never examined in court – then pursue a group civil case, via a legal firm, against the convicted person’s employer. Vicarious liability. That is why there was such vigour to “convict” Savile, because then there could be claims laid against both his estate and employers. Insurers, who invariably then make the actual payouts are very unlikely to defend a claim if there is already a criminal conviction. The civil lawyers seem to use the State to do all their work for them, and this was the core of the problems being grappled with by the 2002 Home Office Parliamentary Committee. Back then the last thing the government wanted a fuss over was a challenge to the UK court & legal systemhttp://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/2002-and-all-that.html

“109. There are two alternative routes to compensation in cases of past institutional abuse. The complainant can either claim compensation under the Scheme administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority,[188] or they can pursue an action for damages through the civil courts. Although both routes are subject to time limits,[189] these are generally waived or extended in cases of child abuse, usually on the basis of supporting psychological evidence.[190] If both routes are pursued successfully, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will seek to recoup the sum awarded under their Scheme.[191]

110. There are three significant differences between the two available options. The first relates to the average level of award. The tariffs set by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (for this type of offence) range from a minimum of £1,000 up to a maximum of £33,000 for the most serious injuries. Awards may be reduced, or even refused, if the applicant has a past criminal record.[192] We were informed that, in 48 institutional abuse cases resolved last year, a total award of £146,000 was made.[193] This makes an average award of £6,400 per applicant. By contrast, civil compensation awards can range up to £100,000 and many fall between the £30,000 to £75,000 bracket.[194]”http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/83606.htm#a19

It is, of course, true by definition that someone who has been convicted in a criminal case, in a fully-contested trial in which he had every reason to assert all possible defences available to him (and did so) and was unsuccessful nonetheless, has by being found guilty well more than met the civil standard of “more likely than not, based on all available credible evidence presented.”

In other words, if you slap a deep-pocketed convicted criminal defendant with a civil suit, there is less you must prove, as, he cannot now re-litigate his conviction in the civil court if the elements of the tort are the same as the crime. But what this really means is that if there is someone behind the defendant who may also be found culpable, the defendant’s criminality is not in dispute– merely the newly-joined civil co-defendant’s knowledge of it. In the case of a non-financially-secure convicted criminal, it will be the civil co-defendant who will have the deep pockets. If any sort of case can be made that the criminal defendant’s conduct was or with ordinary diligence could have been discovered to have happened and the civil co-defendant did nothing about it– rather than risk any greater loss of reputation, the civil co-defendant will settle, and quick!

So, all things being considered, you look for a criminal case where, even upon a plea of guilty there must be a stipulation to the Crown’s “facts,” such as they are, at least as evidence of the wrongdoing, and then you make the prudential decision as to what you believe will net your “victim” (who may very well truly BE one, I’m not saying they cannot, simply in virtue of looking for a payday) a higher compensatory stack of simoleons. A full-out trial conviction and a deep pocket looking to hush things up is the Promised Land.

For the CPS to be a true Xian church it would have to undergo at least 2 schisms (put 3 real Xians in a room and you’ll get at least 4 churches out) and they’d also have to excommunicate everyone else in sight…bell, book and candle…or maybe bell-end, crook and savile.

Meanwhile however M.W.Tomas de Torquemada continues to defend the faithful.

I remember I got a criminal injury award for the attack I suffered about 40 years ago. I can’t remember how much it was now but I had quite a long fight to get it, perhaps because the perpetrator wasn’t caught until he attacked another girl. I was off work for a while so it was useful. I think it was about £500, quite a lot then but I had injuries and the police were called at once.

I do believe Alison Saunders is equivocating. While most past sex-abuse claimants may not be in it for the money, there are some obvious exceptions that have been exposed by the landlady. Their motivation may be to bring attention to a book to boost sales, or merely spite at a perceived wrong, that with the passage of time and mortality of some the accused wrongdoers is impossible to defend, but all this misses the major point.

The punishment meted to the accused is the process, the drawn-out expensive court proceedings that drains the lifetime savings of all but the most wealthy. Saunders would do well to turn her attention to her colleagues who are getting very rich by prosecuting the flimsiest allegations to the benefit of hardly anybody.

As a society perhaps it is about time to recognize that ill fortune befalls us all during our lifetime, monetary compensation is not available or even desirable for most of these events. I have great sympathy for abused defenseless children and abused mentally deficient people of all ages and we should use our best efforts to improve their care, much as Margaret Jervis , Carol42 and the landlady (and no doubt others here) have done during their lives-well done ladies, we need more of you. Can the effects of abuse be soothed with a balm of monetary award? I doubt it, and the lawyers must know this, yet still they grub about among the painful memories of victims for their own benefit.

Hi Just read Bob Woffindens Article in the Inside Time plus comments, the Head of the C.P.S. who brought this case was related to the Judge at this trial and if alarm bells are not ringing what is going on in our courts by concealing cases from the public eye.

“……… police and judiciary are seemingly hard-wired to want to control, monitor and judge and so the very attributes of paranoia that seem to afflict many in our society are in a dreadful and dangerous accord with those who have power over all of us. This is a very serious and a very dangerous situation. I am searching for Reason and finding that these people are operating outside of it. The very Law itself has become somewhat unhinged. Juries of ordinary people are now demonstrating that. We need to support ordinary people all that we can.”http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/weirdo.html

First thing to know about the court system there is an invested interest to put cases through the court, many jobs are dependent on it and the whole legal system (specially the celebrity cases) is funded by billions of pounds. This whole investigation into these Celebrates is not just purely police investigation but also involves special interest/pressure groups such as the NSPCC. One media quote I read indicating this is a joint investigation between the NSPCC and the police but there is an invested interest at least from organisations such as the NSPCC to show results.

With the massive media coverage it only takes a call from one Individual who may believe they are “helping” an existing investigation or even a suggestion to one of these police/NSPCC linked charities to get stuck into the legal trap. Many of those who step forward may only seeking the offender to get a slap on the wrist, telling off but not a complete media/legal circus or the expectation of sending the offender to prison. Some times the complete legal circus can be more abusive than some one “touching” them 30 years back.

When I use the word “Legal trap”, there is no way out after reporting the incident, no chance of changing the story and you have to stick by it. Remember you have hundreds of these charities/pressure group putting pressure on these vulnerable Individuals to report these crimes specially when it is related to a celebrity. After reporting it to the police, the the police have the evidence and if any attempts of the vulnerable Individual backing down or refusing to go to court could result of the Individual being charged with contempt or lying.

It may have been initially about money, went to a charity/news paper who in return suggested to an Individual “report it to the police first” which is when the whole legal chain reaction starts with lawyers dependent on results (also in it for the money). For a celebrity who may been in contact with hundreds of thousands of children (due to their popular status) it should be no surprise it only takes one of those thousands to consider their contact with them as being “abusive”.

We now have had 3 jury trials, and the jury are not stupid will see behind the whole case which may be the reason for the not guilty verdict. We now have two upcoming cases and if these individuals are also found not guilty then some one needs to question the whole legal system. I personally believe when a case involved two individuals, one word against another should be carried out behind closed door via private arbitration and only going to court of private arbitration deal fails. With private arbitration every one wins, the victim gets compensated and the criminal has to pay out. The only losers from a private arbitration deal is the lawyers who all depend on the cases going to court.

I know of several Individuals who reported the crime, and the experience of the legal system to the victim is many times worse than the actual crime that took place.

, with this investigation being a joint police and there is jobs dependent on showing some results.